Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, ORD_36668/2024, 25 September 2024)

Date	25 September 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Amend Document
Registry reference	App_33728/2024 · ORD_36668/2024
Parties	Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a procedural order of 25 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_114/2024, UPC_CFI_448/2024, ACT_13227/2024, ORD_36668/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division partly admitted the amendment of claim sought by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG in its action against Vibrantz GmbH for infringement of EP 3 215 288. The amendment followed a judgment of the German Federal Patent Court, final since 7 May 2024, which annulled the device claim and upheld the use claim. The order shows how Rule 263 applies to an amendment prompted by a national decision.

Question

May a claimant, under Rule 263, align its requests with a final national judgment and add a request based on indirect use of the process claim?

Decision

Rule 263 requires the court to consider whether the amendment could not have been made earlier with due diligence and whether it would unreasonably hinder the other party, the burden of proof lying with the claimant. Request II.1b, which reflects the German judgment, was admitted as an unconditional limitation. Auxiliary request II.1b’, concerning obvious preparation for use, was admitted: it was filed diligently once the judgment became final and does not unreasonably hinder the defendant. Request II.2 was refused: it could have been raised in the statement of claim of 12 March 2024, and filing it some three months later fell short of due diligence, a separate action remains open. Vibrantz was given a further 30 days to respond.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a final national decision justifies aligning the requests, but not adding new heads of claim that could have been pleaded in the statement of claim.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 8.6, 25.1, 42.2, 102.2, 263 and 333
Case law cited: Munich Local Division, APP_25265/2024, UPC_CFI_42/2024

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantHeraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG13 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Amend Document
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La modification des demandes est admise en tant qu'elle traduit le jugement national définitif (demande II.1b et demande subsidiaire II.1b'), et rejetée pour le chef nouveau d'utilisation indirecte de la revendication de procédé, qui aurait pu être formé dès l'assignation.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 215 288 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 215 288` Sintered metal preparation and its use for joining components recorded proprietor: Heraeus Deutschland GmbH and Co KG	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 10 other decision(s): Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CoA, 16 September 2026) · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, UPC_CFI_114/2024, 10 October 2025 · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 2 June 2025) · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 16 April 2025) · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 26 February 2025) · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 24 January 2025) · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 2 December 2024) · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 14 November 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.